02/05/2017

Climate Change Policy Review

350.org Australia

What it is and why it matters

What is the Review?
In Australia's toxic political climate, climate change policy has been the biggest casualty. But there is a glimmer of hope. In setting their emission reduction targets and policies, the Government committed to reviewing those policies, and they are doing it now.
The review is taking place throughout 2017 and the first step, the one happening right now, is public consultation on a discussion paper that has been released for comment. Submissions can be made until May 5.

Why is it important?
Australia has one of the worst track records on climate.
We know that we need strong policy to reduce emissions and avoid the risks climate change poses to all Australians. In fact, 73% of Australians agree that we need stronger leadership on climate. Our Government is failing on climate, and it's time they heard just how important we think this is.
It's up to us to demand strong climate action.

How can you get involved?
We need you to make sure the Government can't ignore the voice of Australians – and there are several ways you can get involved:

Write a submission to the review
The review is calling for public submissions – let's give them what they want. You don't have to be a climate scientist or policy wonk to make a submission. Climate change affects every one of us, and you don't need to be an expert to know that our current policy doesn't stack up, so have your say.
Head to the website and follow the instructions. Below we've gathered some resources and talking points to make writing a submission easy.
Make a submission

Write or, better yet, call your MP
What's the best way to make sure our politicians know we care about climate change? Tell them! Politicians and staffers are busy people who don't have time to read every tweet or Facebook post, not even every email. The best way to reach them is by picking up the phone, and a written letter is the next best thing. Find your MP here. And hey, if you can't do that, use our easy online tool and send a message directly to Frydenburg and Turnbull.
Send a letter

Write your own submission
If you, your group, or organisation would like to make a submission here are some talking points that you can use to make it simple. The louder the chorus, the harder it is for our Government to ignore us.
Follow these steps to submit to the review:
  • Use as many, or as few, of the talking points below to write your submission. Feel free to add more too!
  • Complete a cover sheet
  • Email your submission (in Microsoft Word or PDF format), along with your cover sheet to climatechangereview@environment.gov.au by 5pm May 5
You could organise a submission writing party with your team, spend a few minutes at your next meeting (such as your next Stop Adani group meeting!), or simply share a document with a few people to work on.
The talking points below are set out in direct response to the sections in the review's discussion paper. Use as many or as few as you like in your submission, and you can of course add your own!
  1. Background on Australia's climate change policies
  2. Australia's Paris Target and The Climate Imperative
  3. Sectoral Analysis: Electricity
  4. Sectoral Analysis: Households, small to medium sized enterprises (SMEs) and the Built Environment
  5. Sectoral Analysis: Resources, Manufacturing, Waste
  6. Sectoral Analysis: Transport
  7. Sectoral Analysis: Land Use and Agriculture
  8. Research, Development, Innovation and Technology
  9. International Units
Background on Australia's climate change policies
In 2015 Australia signed on to the Paris Agreement, committing to taking strong action on climate change and a global goal to hold temperature increase to well below 2°C, and pursue efforts to keep it below 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.
As part of the Paris Agreement countries submitted targets and plans known as Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs). Australia submitted one of the weakest INDCs of all developed nations, with a target to reduce emissions by 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2030*. The policies to achieve these targets were even weaker, ignoring cheaper and more effective options, and opting for a "Direct Action" scheme with an "Emissions Reduction Fund" where the Government pays companies for reducing emissions.
How has that policy worked so far?
Experts and reports, including those by the Government themselves, suggest that Direct Action is one of the most expensive and least effective options, not to mention there's no way to assess whether any genuine reductions have been made.
And what about emissions? They're rising. As emissions are stalling or dropping in other countries around the world, appallingly, emissions are up 7.5% in Australia since the carbon price was removed.
*The Government target of 26-28% emission reductions below 2005 levels by 2030 is too low to limit warming to 2°C, and is equivalent to a level of global action that would result in 3-4°C of global warming (Climate Institute, Climate Council, Climate Change Authority, Climate Action Tracker, IPCC).

Australia's Paris Target and The Climate Imperative
The many lines of evidence, and 97% of climate scientists, confirm that global warming is happening and it is because of our emissions. This is the greatest challenge of our time.
The risks are great, and the damage significant (Department of Environment, World Resources Institute on the IPCC). Already climate change is influencing extreme weather events that are wreaking havoc around the country, and the world (Attribution Research, Extreme Weather of 2016,
Australian Government Climate Change Website, Australian Climate Change Science Program).
Heatwaves are becoming more frequent and more intense (Harvard, National Acadamies Study). Bushfires, drought and floods too (Climate Council 1, 2, 3, Australian Climate Change Science Program).
The Reef, our premier tourist attraction, is terminal (The Conversation, The Guardian Special Report, ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, National Geographic).
Our own health suffers at the hands of climate change and fossil fuels (Lancet Study, Climate Council). As does agriculture and the economy (Climate Council 1, 2, 3, UNDP, Assets study). Geopolitical stability rests in the balance as climate change magnifies the issues underlying global conflict (Centre for Policy Development, Defence White Paper).
 The systems upon which civilisation is based are at risk. It is our duty to do everything in our power to avoid these risks and consequences. Indeed, the Paris Agreement, ratified by 130 countries including Australia, commits to:
  • an overarching goal to hold global average temperature increase to well below 2 degrees and pursue efforts to keep warming below 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels
  • aim to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible and rapid reductions thereafter to achieve a balance between emissions and removals of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century (Paris Agreement)
Discussion Question: Australia has committed to considering a potential long-term emissions reduction goal for Australia beyond 2030. What factors should be considered in this process?
Policy and targets should be informed by the evidence of what is needed, and ambition for what is possible. They should consider the most effective and efficient way to achieve emission reductions, without ruling out options for ideological reasons.
 Policy should be created that ensures households, especially low income and vulnerable households, are not disadvantaged, and so those who have been advantaged pay their fair share. Policy should respect the rights of first nations people.
Climate change policy, and all policy, should be created to include these factors, while simultaneously aiming for ambitious outcomes based on evidence – these are not opposing forces, but complementary ones. Further, as an issue that affects every aspect of the environment, economy and society, climate change should be a factor in all policy.
For climate change, the evidence, scientists and experts tell us that to avert the risks of warming policies need to reduce global emissions to zero as soon as possible, and then draw carbon out of the atmosphere  (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – IPCC, Stockholm Environment Institute, The Climate Institute, IPCC SYR AR5 p101).
The longer we wait, the harder it gets (Dr James Hansen, Mercator Research Institute). To preserve a safe climate long term scientists tell us we must reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to below 350 parts per million (Dr James Hansen and colleagues) from it's current level of over 400 (NASA). To stay within the aspirational Paris guardrail of 1.5 degrees warming we can only emit 353 Gt of CO2 from now on.
And that's only a 50/50 chance. In currently operating fields and wells we have 942 Gt (Sky's Limit Report). This is stark, but simple math. It means our target is zero. Zero new fossil fuel projects. And zero emissions.
Australian climate policy should reject any new fossil fuel projects, and pass legislation for bold emission reduction targets and strong renewable energy ones (ACT Climate Change Policy, Climate Council).

Discussion Question: What process could Australia use to implement its Paris commitment to review targets every five years?
Any review process should include analysis of whether policy has actually been effective in achieving the target outcomes. For climate change targets and policy, this includes a review of how effective policy has been in reducing emissions.
Considering that global warming is a global commons problem (that no country can solve its own climate problem by itself), and considering the risks and opportunities that climate change poses – addressing climate change should be a race to the top.
In reviewing its emission reduction targets Australia should compare the targets of all other countries and aim to be leading the pack. As the Australian Climate Change Authority (2014) states: "It is clearly in Australia's interest to persuade and encourage other nations to strengthen their contributions to international action.
Australia is likely to be more persuasive and encouraging if its own goals are viewed as a fair contribution by others."

Discussion Question: What are the issues in the transition to a lower emissions economy with respect to jobs, investment, trade competitiveness, households (including low income and vulnerable households) and regional Australia?
Luckily, the solutions and technology for a lower emissions economy are available (IPCC, Beyond Zero Emissions – BZE, ClimateWorks, Science), and provide many benefits in addition to averting the risks of climate change: cleaner air, better health, less health costs, more energy security with distributed networked grids, lower energy costs, more jobs, cleaner water, preserved ecosystems (International Renewable Energy Agency – IRENA, The Conversation, Union of Concerned Scientists).
The idea that the environment is at odds with the economy is a fallacy. Climate change action will benefit the economy and society. This can be illustrated for all the sectors mentioned in the discussion paper.
Australia has the opportunity to be leaders and innovators. To manage and inspire the transition to a better future. Australians want this (The Climate Institute, CSIRO). For ourselves, our children, and our grandchildren.

Sectoral Analysis: Electricity
As the discussion paper states, the electricity sector remains Australia's largest source of carbon emissions.  This sector should therefore receive priority in Australia's efforts to drive down emissions.
The Government review of the National Electricity Market (NEM) currently underway is a positive first step, as is the Interim Report that states "current policy settings do not provide a clear pathway to the level of reduction required to meet Australia's Paris commitments."
We have zero emission sources of energy (Australian Energy Market Operator – AEMO, Stanford – The Solutions Project, Homegrown Power Plan, Dr Andrew Blakers), and they provide many benefits.
First, renewables are now cheaper than other fossil fuel sources of electricity for reliable baseload supply (Reputex), and new supply (The Conversation). Renewables are rapidly on their way to becoming cheaper than old fossil fuel electricity (Climate Council), and that's while fossil fuels receive a free ride, as they avoid paying for the health and environmental impacts they cause (International Monetary Fund – IMF, IPCC, ).
To level the playing field even further, we should remove the free ride fossil fuels get. This means removing subsidies for fossil fuels, and charging for externalities – the fossil fuel impacts that are currently borne by taxpayers (IMF, Australian Conservation Foundation – ACF, IPCC, UNFCC, International Energy Agency -IEA, OECD, Lowy Institute, Garnaut Review, British Columbia example).
Renewables will employ more people (Climate Council). The jobs in renewable energy also pose less health risks to workers than those in fossil fuels (Union of Concerned Scientists). Australia should develop a transition plan for fossil fuel workers and communities to shift to renewables (Hillary Clinton Coal Community Plan 1, 2).
Global investment is shifting from fossil fuels to renewables: "We see a broad shift of spending toward cleaner energy, often as a result of government policies," said IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol.
"Our report clearly shows that such government measures can work, and are key to a successful energy transition. But while some progress has been achieved, investors need clarity and certainty from policy makers. Governments must not only maintain but heighten their commitment to achieve energy security and climate goals." (IEA, Bloomberg New Energy Finance)
Australia has a comparative advantage to be trade competitive as a renewable energy superpower. As countries shift from fossil fuels to renewables a huge opportunity exists to supply renewable solutions, but this window will close as the replacement of fossil fuels with renewables nears completion (BZE).
 To benefit from the energy transition businesses and nations must invest during this wave of change, and Australia is well placed with plentiful access to renewable resources.
Households will benefit from the lower cost of renewables, and increased security that renewables can provide through distributed networks and microgrids. Australians will benefit from the safer jobs, and from the environmental and health benefits of cleaner air and water. These benefits will also flow to vulnerable and low income households.
However policy should explicitly ensure that these households are not further disadvantaged, particularly as people experiencing disadvantage will be first and worst impacted by climate change (ACOSS, Australian Academy of Science, World Bank) – another reason why effective climate change policy is necessary and provides many co-benefits.
Rural and regional areas receive a high proportion, 30-40%, of the investment in renewables, and these projects bring jobs to the area and offer farmers additional revenue streams (Climate Council). The transition to clean energy will also reduce the health burden of burning fossil fuels, which is primarily borne by rural and regional areas.
Renewables can also provide more distributed and therefore reliable energy, with lower costs for rural and remote communities, who traditionally pay much higher prices than their urban counterparts. Further, climate change disproportionately affects rural and regional communities with extreme weather stress and agricultural impacts.
 Mitigating climate change will reduce the impacts rural communities based on agriculture face.

Sectoral Analysis: Households, small to medium sized enterprises (SMEs) and the Built Environment
The discussion paper outlines how households account for 12% of emissions, and SMEs 7%. These emissions could be reduced with strong energy efficient building codes with an aspirational goal of zero emission buildings (IPCC, BZE, VIC Government).
 Household policies would have many benefits. For example, implementing the measures such as those in Beyond Zero Emissions building plan would result in tens of thousands of jobs from retrofit projects alone; household savings of $40 billion over the next 30 years; reducing the residential energy sector's annual energy use by 53%, and; reducing energy use in the non-residential sector by 44% (BZE).
The National Energy Productivity Plan sets a goal of a 40% improvement in energy productivity by 2030 (NEPP), but this is far lower than what research suggests is possible. A report by Climateworks found that the potential exists to nearly double the energy productivity of the Australian economy by 2030 by investing in the modernisation of our energy system and taking advantage of recent technological developments (ClimateWorks).
 The Australian Alliance for Energy Productivity is also working on a roadmap that will set the course for a doubling of energy productivity by 2030, and is working with all levels of government on energy productivity plans (2xEP). An Energetics report on a doubling of energy productivity by 2030 illustrates the benefits of such a plan, including 10% emission reductions and a $59.5bn gain to GDP (Energetics).
The Equipment Energy Efficiency program is part of the National Energy Productivity Plan, and implementing the recommendations from the Greenhouse and Energy Minimum Standards (GEMS) will help strengthen it (Energy Rating, GEMS Review 1, 2).

Sectoral Analysis: Resources, Manufacturing, Waste
The discussion paper sets out that Resources, Manufacturing and Waste accounts for 28% of Australia's emissions, but it is difficult to determine where this figure came from. The Department of the Environment and Energy 2016 paper, Australia's emissions projections 2016 provides a sectoral analysis for Direct Combustion (which includes resources and manufacturing) and Waste, each accounting respectively for 95 and 12 Mt CO2‑e of the total 527 Mt CO2‑e emitted in 2015, or 20% of emissions.
Around 20 Mt CO2‑e of these emissions come from the direct combustion of fossil fuels for energy, which a shift to 100% renewable electricity would completely eliminate. A similar case exists for the 8 Mt CO2‑e from coal mining.
The shift to renewables already has strong co-benefits of more jobs, lower electricity costs, increased health benefits and lower health costs, and cleaner air and water.
The industry and manufacturing sector is the largest subsector, accounting for 36 Mt CO2‑e emissions. Beyond Zero Emissions is currently working on an Industry Plan that will illustrate how this sector can reduce emissions, which will fill an important gap in the roadmap to a low and zero emissions economy.

Sectoral Analysis: Transport
Transport accounts for 18% of Australian emissions and provides another large opportunity to reduce emissions.
Strong targets for more efficient transit and urban planning to reduce the emissions of transport can significantly reduce emissions, and the Ministerial Forum on Vehicle Emissions can help provide those (Climate Change Authority, Centre for Climate and Energy Solutions, Sustainable Cities Institutes, Union of Concerned Scientists, BZE, IPCC).
 The Ministerial Forum should also be tasked to examine three significant developments which will transform the light vehicle transport sector in the next two decades: the uptake of plug-in electric vehicles (EVs), autonomous vehicles and the trend towards new models of vehicle sharing.
Incentives to facilitate rapid fuel switching, and ensuring traffic regulations do not inhibit trials or uptake of autonomous vehicles or vehicle sharing will facilitate the shift to low and zero emission transport.
These disruptive shifts could significantly reduce the traffic and congestion costs Australia faces (DIRD report) by reducing the congestion and traffic on the road.

Sectoral Analysis: Land Use and Agriculture
Rural and regional areas receive a high proportion, 30-40%, of the investment in renewables, and these projects bring jobs to the area and offer farmers additional revenue streams (Climate Council). The transition to clean energy will also reduce the health burden of burning fossil fuels, which is primarily borne by rural and regional areas.
Renewables can also provide more distributed and therefore reliable energy, with lower costs for rural and remote communities, who traditionally pay much higher prices than their urban counterparts. Further, climate change disproportionately affects rural and regional communities with extreme weather stress and agricultural impacts.
 Mitigating climate change will reduce the impacts rural communities based on agriculture face.
The Emissions Reduction Fund has been good for farmers, but not at reducing emissions. However, it is a good example of how policy can support rural and regional areas. Those principles should be considered while developing stronger policy in the agricultural and land use sectors that reduce emissions.
As the Climate Change Authority Special Review of Australia's climate goals and policies states, Australia will need a toolkit of both strengthened and new policies to meet the Paris targets.
We recommend that Australia develops strong land use policy that protects and uses the opportunity soil and agriculture offers us for drawing more carbon out of the atmosphere, reduces agricultural emissions, and increases our ability to draw carbon out of the atmosphere through reforestation and afforestation (IPCC, Union of Concerned Scientists, BZE, Climate Change Authority).

Research, Development, Innovation and Technology
Research, development and technology have played an important factor in reducing emissions. It is thanks to renewable technology development that we have zero emission sources of energy and can reduce our emissions while maintaining our lifestyles.
 Further, as most of the 2 degree scenarios in the IPCC reports require untested technology, research and technology will become even more important.
Key to these areas is consistent, sufficient funding. Cuts to CSIRO and ARENA run counter to the discussion paper's claim that "Innovation is central to meeting the ambition of the Paris Agreement."
Funding for these institutions should be reinstated.

International Units
Considering that global warming is a global commons problem (that no country can solve its own climate problem by itself), and considering the risks and opportunities that climate change poses – addressing climate change should be a race to the top.
In reviewing its emission reduction targets Australia should compare the targets of all other countries and aim to be leading the pack. As the Australian Climate Change Authority (2014) states: "It is clearly in Australia's interest to persuade and encourage other nations to strengthen their contributions to international action.
"Australia is likely to be more persuasive and encouraging if its own goals are viewed as a fair contribution by others."
Australia should do everything it our power to do our fair share in reducing emissions before using International Units to make up for it. This is also important for issues of equity.
Some countries have been responsible for far more carbon emissions than others, and have enjoyed a higher level of material comfort for it. It is morally corrupt to deny developing nations the same opportunities, and the Green Climate Fund is available to transfer.
 Australia's commitment of $200 million to the Green Climate Fund from 2015-2018 is a positive step. Australia should strengthen this leadership and contribute its fair share, which research suggests is 2.4% of the global commitment.
International Units should be a last resort, so that Australia can experience the benefits to jobs, investment, trade, households and regional communities that will come with action to reduce emissions.

Climate Change Could Drive Coastal Food Webs To Collapse

The ConversationIvan NagelkerkenSean ConnellSilvan Goldenberg

A tank can give a good idea of what will happen out in the wild. Author provided
Coastal marine food webs could be in danger of collapse as a result of rising carbon dioxide levels, according to our new research. The study shows that although species such as algae will receive a boost, the positive effects are likely to be cancelled out by the increased stress to species further up the food chain such as predatory fish.
Food webs are essentially networks of species that interact with each other. The connection between them can stabilise systems, for instance by preventing particular species from becoming too common, thereby encouraging the presence of a wide range of species.
These pathways can be quite stable, but they are vulnerable to ocean warming and acidification. Such food webs are therefore sensitive to changing climates, through potential changes both to plant growth (bottom-up effects) and to predator abundance and behaviour (top-down effects).
Because of the sheer complexity of species interactions within these food webs, we struggle to understand what future food webs might look like and how humans will be affected through changes in the services provided by the ocean, such as food, materials and energy.

Test tank
We used a self-contained ecosystem in a 2,000-litre tank to study the effects of warming and ocean acidification on a coastal food web. This approach can give us a good idea of what might happen to genuine coastal food webs, because the tank (called a "mesocosm") contains natural habitats and a range of species that interact with one another, just as they do in the wild.
Our food web had three levels: primary producers (algae), herbivores (invertebrates), and predators (fish).
The results show that carbon dioxide enrichment can actually boost food webs from the bottom up through increased algal growth. This benefited herbivores because of the higher abundance of food, and in turn boosted the very top of the food web, where fish grew faster.
But while this effect of ocean acidification may be seen as positive for marine ecosystems, it mainly benefits "weedy" species – a definition that can be applied to some species of algae, invertebrates, and even fish.
In contrast, habitat-forming species such as kelp forests and coral reefs are more likely to disappear with rising CO₂ emissions, and with them many associated species that are deprived of their habitats and food.

Detrimental effect
Our results therefore showed that warming had a detrimental overall effect on the coastal food web we studied. Although higher temperatures boosted algal growth, herbivorous populations did not expand. Because herbivore abundances remained similar and elevated temperatures result in a higher metabolic demand, predatory fish consumed more herbivorous prey, resulting in a collapse of these prey populations.
These results show how the benefits of one human-induced effect (increased ocean CO₂) are cancelled out by the negative effects of a co-occuring stressor (ocean warming). More importantly, it also shows how interactions between species (predator and prey, in this case) can alter the outcome of climate stressors on individual species.
Such indirect effects within the web of life have remained largely unstudied, despite the fact that they may in many cases be more important than direct effects in terms of their future impacts.
For example, habitat loss and loss of predator species are key indirect effects that can alter species populations within food webs. However, these effects also offer the opportunity for some conservation wins.
First, humans are altering marine ecosystems in many other ways than just climate change, such as through pollution, habitat destruction, and eutrophication (an excess of nutrients, often caused by runoff from land). By reducing these effects we could reduce the overall burden on marine species, potentially buying them time to adapt to climate change across generations.
Second, by reducing habitat loss from other human impacts – by implementing well-designed sanctuary zones – we can also maintain the habitats, prey and other organisms on which species depend for their growth and survival.
Finally, studies suggest that the top of food webs will be disproportionately affected by climate change, and research has shown that predators play important roles in maintaining diversity and general ecosystem health. By reducing the ongoing global overfishing of predatory species worldwide, we might relieve some of the direct effects of climate change on food webs and ecosystems.

Links

Turnbull's Foolish Gamble To Pander To Big Fossil Over Adani Coal Mine

Fairfax - Crispin Hull

Is Malcolm Turnbull determined to lose the 2019 election? His statement this week that the government could underwrite the rail line for the Adani mine would have increased the anger among small businesses in the six reef seats.
They are already reeling from two destructive bouts of cyclones and floods and see their long-term future horribly compromised by coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef. So along comes the Prime Minister giving support to the one thing that most threatens their livelihoods – the proposed massive Adani central Queensland thermal-coal mine.
Protesters gathered as Adani's local mining chief executive Jeyakumar Janakaraj spoke at a business lunch in Brisbane. Photo: Supplied
Two of the Reef Seats are the most marginal in the Parliament: Labor holds Townsville-based Herbert by just 0.02 per cent and the LNP holds Capricornia by just 0.63 per cent. Three others are held by the LNP by under 4 per cent: Flynn on 1.04 per cent; Dawson on 3.34 per cent; and Leichhardt on 3.95 per cent. The other reef seat, Kennedy, is comfortably held by Bob Katter who heads his own party.
Turnbull is deluded if he imagines the plaudits he gets from big business and "Big Fossil" will outweigh the opprobrium and fury he will create among the thousands of small businesses that depend on the Great Barrier Reef.

Government 'should get smashed': Jones
The government using taxpayers' dollars to support the Adani coal mine is the kind of policy that will see it "smashed in an election", says 2GB's Alan Jones.

I went to a meeting about the mine in Port Douglas this week. There was a strong under-current of: "I am no tree-hugging greenie, but my small business is under threat for no good reason."
All of the Reef Seats have coastal towns and cities (or parts of a city) that are more dependent on tourism and agriculture than mining, which threatens both.
Mining always exaggerates the jobs it creates. It likes to pretend the short-term establishment jobs last through the whole project. Adani is a case in point. Better estimates suggest that Adani will create just 1400 full-time equivalent jobs through the life of the mine. But even exaggerated mining claims are dwarfed by tourism employment.
The Great Barrier Reef provides 69,000 full-time-equivalent jobs directly and indirectly.
Gautam Adani: can give Adani a cheap loan of nearly $1 billion to build a railway that only Adani can use. Photo: The New York Times
According to a 2013 report to the federal government, "A high proportion of the value-added and employment generated emanates from tourism activity, with almost $5.2 billion in value added and about 64,000 FTEs generated by the tourism sector."
The trouble is the mining industry has just a few powerful players with a single voice and a lot of money, so it can influence government easily – witness the piddling $22 million they spent on advertising to make the then Labor government back away from its Minerals Resource Rent Tax.
It will be a foolish gamble for Malcolm Turnbull to pander to Big Fossil when there is a seething groundswell of discontent. Photo: AP
Tourism, however, has thousands of people running small businesses with no spare time or money to look after their own interests. It expects government (especially a government that says it is pro-small business) to do that for them.
But as we have seen recently in western democracies, there are few rusted-on voters any more. It will be a foolish gamble to pander to Big Fossil when there is a seething groundswell of discontent.
Turnbull suggests that the federal government, via the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, can give Adani a cheap loan of nearly $1 billion to build a railway that only Adani can use. That is $750,000 per job. Lots of businesses in northern Australia could find better ways to use that money, including replacing cyclone- and flood-destroyed infrastructure.
It is an appalling misuse of government funds on legal, economic and environmental grounds.
NAIF is legally supposed to be for infrastructure projects in the public interest and for projects that would not otherwise be built. The one-user railway for a company that says it can fund its project itself simply does not qualify.
Resource companies have a history of paying pitifully low rates of tax. They just grab our resources and sell them overseas for the benefit of foreign shareholders.
A good example earlier this month was the Chevron tax case. Chevron US raised $2.5 billion at 1.2 per cent and "lent" it to its Australian arm at 9 per cent, which the Australia arm claimed as a tax deduction, more or less reducing its taxable income in Australia to zero. They all do it. Mercifully, the full Federal Court upheld the ATO's rejection of the deduction and its $300 million tax assessment.
The main objection to the Adani mine is that it is for brown (or thermal) coal, which is only good for electricity generation. There are far cleaner and cheaper renewable alternatives that will ultimately make this mine as uneconomic as the Hazelwood brown-coal power station. China is winding back brown-coal power stations and pushing ahead with solar.
Three of the four main banks say they will not go near it. Only Westpac has not ruled it out. (Who would want to bank with a bank that has such foolish and/or immoral lending practices?)
The world should stop thermal-coal mining. The world should be preserving its very limited capacity for fossil fuel burning for things that have no alternative – such a coking coal for steel production.
We used to think that Australia was too small to significantly affect the world's carbon output and through it global warming. Adani, as the biggest potential coal mine in Australia's history and one of the world's largest, changes that.
And Australia has more to lose than most countries through global warming, especially the Great Barrier Reef.
Even if all the coal is exported to India, it is immoral to put Indians through the health hazards of burning coal seen in Britain in the 1950s and Beijing now.
This is an Indian company proposing to export its product to India which will create precious few jobs and pay precious little tax, yet will use 26 million litres of water a day and directly affect the reef through dredging requirements at port and indirectly affect it through climate change.
It makes Turnbull's put-Australia-first slogan look like hypocritical jingoism.
Given thermal coal's damage to the planet and the health of humans on it, it makes about as much sense as mining asbestos. Thermal coal and asbestos used to look useful and economic in the short-term. But we now know that in the long-term they cause more harm than they are worth and there are alternatives for both.
Meanwhile, Queensland Labor seems to want to tick all the Adani approval boxes before the next state election. Federal Labor, which opposes funding the railway, should go further if it wants to cement in five of the critical Reef Seats. It should promise to ban the mining of thermal coal in Australia by refusing export licences. That alone would put a stop to Adani.

Links

New York Times Readers Are Canceling Subscriptions Over Climate-Denying Writer

Huffington PostCarla Herreria

When the paper hired conservative Bret Stephens, it angered one climate scientist. Now, he's starting a movement.

Trump's war on the climate

The New York Times just hired Bret Stephens, a conservative writer who identifies as a “climate agnostic” ― infuriating many readers who say the paper is going against its mission to cover climate change.
Now, scientists are rallying people against the Times and its new hire.
Climate scientist Michael E. Mann launched the hashtag #ShowYourCancellation this week after the paper’s public editor defended the decision to hire the former Wall Street Journal columnist, dismissing its so-called “left-leaning critics” who they claimed were leading a “fiery revolt.”
Mann called for people to prove to the Times that they were actually ending their subscriptions to the paper over Stephens, who published his first column on being skeptical about the effects of climate change on Friday.
IMAGE
IMAGE
IMAGE
IMAGE
The Times’ decision to hire Stephens, a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist, was part of the paper’s efforts to expand its range of political views. But for many, Stephens’ hire was a backward step for a paper that had previously declared climate change to be one of the most pressing modern topics.
And Mann wasn’t the only scientist to denounce the paper’s decision. Ken Caldeira, a Stanford climate researcher, and physics professor Stefan Rahmstorf, an ocean science fellow with the American Geophysical Union, both wrote letters to Times editors alerting them of their canceled subscriptions.
I will support your newspaper no more,” Rahmstorf wrote to the Times in his letter, which he shared on Twitter Thursday. “Instead, I will give the money to ClimateFeedback.org, a worldwide network of scientists sorting fact from fiction in climate change media coverage. It is much better invested there.”
Thanks to Mann, many others are following suit.
IMAGE
IMAGE
IMAGE
Links